nationfandomcom-20200223-history
Forum:Census Reform
__NEWSECTIONLINK__ I'm on a sorta (wild streak) for reform and making things more practical and better for lovia, starting with more minor things. The next step is census reform. I don't know how we do this, but some soultions are: *Congressional numbers (meaning we vote on the numbers...though most people don't like this) *Number increase, the current numbers we have but increased by 3-7 percent *Add your ideas... **Also more frequent censuses. Add a zero, then have a -2 to +5 each year. Isn't this what we thought was good in the first chamber? It wouldn't be in Congress, and it would be bottom up, meaning we decide the new population of neighborhoods first, and the nation last. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 17:43, February 12, 2012 (UTC) Then like we have to re-write the Settlement Act to adapt to that, but again i think it makes it too curved, like just we could change the number to be +5% for a hamlet, 3% for a neighborhood, 6% for a village, and 8% for a town. Marcus/Michael Villanova 17:48, February 12, 2012 (UTC) WE really need to settle this. C'mon so input plz or at least a bill written. Marcus/Michael Villanova 14:42, February 18, 2012 (UTC) I say we change the numbers by changing the numbers. I really think we just need a simple vote. Like changing the numbers. Keeping the old system but making it better. Marcus/Michael Villanova 14:47, February 18, 2012 (UTC) No, only neighborhoods or single neighborhood hamlets/villages should be changed. Then you add those together to get the numbers for cities. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 14:51, February 18, 2012 (UTC) Alright should we comprise the numbers or what? Cuse i still like the old system. Marcus/Michael Villanova 14:52, February 18, 2012 (UTC) Another thing that has to be addressed is the rural thing. Now, all people live in the officially recognized places and nobody in f.e. the wine area of Oceana and other far away farms. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 10:29, February 19, 2012 (UTC) When do settlements grow I think we have to get this clear as well before we get wars like "your Beaverwick has grown 4%, while my Charleston grew only 1% and that's unfair". I think we have to consider the following points, illustrated what it'll do to Hurbanova: * Location: settlements in Kings and near Noble City have a better location, so they will attract more people. (Hurbanova is located in Oceana, relatively far from NC, so its location is pretty bad, though not as bad as Novosevensk f.e., which is almost isolated) * Religion: places which are known to be very religious have a higher birth rate (this means that Hurbanova will have a higher birth rate than Portland) * Employment: if there's no work, people won't stay (with the closure of the mines, Hurbanova still has the highest unemployment rate of Lovia, but it is levelling the last few years) * New settlements: if a new settlement has been created recently, fairly close to the older one, there will be some sort of migration (Oceana hasn't had new settlements since East Hills, being the most stable state of Lovia when it comes to the number of settlements, so this won't have any influence on Hurbanova) * Activity: this will be the most important factor, some towns are very active, others nobody has heared of since they were created. Activity is good for the wiki and inactive settlements make a dead look, so if you put a lot of effort in keeping your settlement alive, you will be rewarded with a higher growth. (Hurbanova is one of the most active places of Lovia, being more active than Noble City (!! NC is dead...), compare it to places like Beaverwick or Newhaven: no events are organized there since the fall of Lovian communism, you could say Kings has been abandoned with the departure of Yuri) Putting things into perspective and considering the +5% border of TM, Hurbanova will get something like a +3,5% growth, NC a +3%, Sofasi a +3% , TV a +1%, and Newhaven a -2%. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 10:49, February 19, 2012 (UTC) :Well thought of. And of course, the birth rate is like at least 1% higher wherever there is a high concentration of Donia clan members. The glorious First Consul of Rome 11:28, February 19, 2012 (UTC) ::Yeah, the Donias probably are number one of the List of families by highest birth rate :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 13:00, February 19, 2012 (UTC) don't think I'm going to create that page though :P I just like the old system but the numbers increased which would just need a simple vote. Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:11, February 19, 2012 (UTC) ::TV more like a -80%, since it was essentially destroyed in the Civil War (remember the napalm bombardment of the village? it burnt to the ground...). —TimeMaster (talk • ) 13:13, February 19, 2012 (UTC) :::This system is for future increase/decrease, not for historical. And away: we still need to fix the Civil War. All this napalm and nuke shit is way over it. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 13:15, February 19, 2012 (UTC) :::::Nope, that would be "fixing" the numbers which i've proposed and was denied. Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:24, February 19, 2012 (UTC) ::::::Nothing's really been denied. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 13:49, February 19, 2012 (UTC) ::::::::Hmmm i see/ Marcus/Michael Villanova 14:14, February 19, 2012 (UTC) :::::::::I still fear there'll be difficulties in quantifying these factors, tho' I agree that it will make for a more realistic model. --Semyon 14:15, February 19, 2012 (UTC) :::::::::::But it's the only way for us to have an actuall country with all these sports and companies. Marcus/Michael Villanova 14:23, February 19, 2012 (UTC) Alright Marcus Let's get back to this topic, shall we? :P We could also link to these figures and then keep in mind that alcohol can have both negative (deaths) and positive ("alcohol babyboom") effects in the population growth. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 15:38, February 19, 2012 (UTC) Okay, xD i just want to know what direction we can come in favor for, either we change the census numbers, or control the numbers. I'mma leave the option below. Marcus/Michael Villanova 15:40, February 19, 2012 (UTC) Unofficial Vote Okay so you got three options...One we change the numbers and keep the system the same. this option is call #1, the second option is congressional controlled numbers with a law that says it needs a majority of 60% so we come to a complete consensus, this option is #2, and #3 is another option you think would be great. Leave only Pro votes for the option you like. #1 * Marcus/Michael Villanova *'Weak' --OuWTBsjrief-mich 15:49, February 19, 2012 (UTC) current system is very efficient, unfortunately we'll still not be able to fix the rural issue *:Actually, this system could be integrated in mine. If "buying a house" is considered activity, then it might have a positive effect on the growth of the population. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 17:51, February 19, 2012 (UTC) * , perhaps even with districts (:P), which might help to solve the rural issue. --Semyon 16:00, February 19, 2012 (UTC) *:Perhaps the districts would indeed be a good idea, but still impossible with system #1. System #1 is a bottom-to-top approach, going from the neighborhoods, adding them up to settlements, and then to states. To let it work in the rural area, you would need users buying homes in those regions... --OuWTBsjrief-mich 16:14, February 19, 2012 (UTC) *:Another thing: imagine Hurb has 30.000 inhabitants (current numbers times ten), if one user buys a home, it'll increase which over 1.000. If five users buy a home in a neighborhood, it'll increase by 6.000 (20%!!) --OuWTBsjrief-mich 16:42, February 19, 2012 (UTC) *::I don't see why we can't allow users to buy houses in rural areas... --Semyon 18:18, February 19, 2012 (UTC) *:::I do. Now, we can guide the system because people can only buy homes that say "for sale". If you'd allow people to build wherever they want you'll get another fifty Donia castles built in NPs... --OuWTBsjrief-mich 18:42, February 19, 2012 (UTC) *... *... #2 * *... *... #3 * --OuWTBsjrief-mich 15:49, February 19, 2012 (UTC) (my own system above) *Weak . While I like Oos's idea in principle, it seems insanely complicated in practice and probably not that different from #2. --Semyon 16:00, February 19, 2012 (UTC) * - Oos's system, it will work, I am confident. - Kunarian 16:26, February 19, 2012 (UTC) * Pierlot McCrooke 16:27, February 19, 2012 (UTC) * add a zero, and do the +5% to -2% thing we have agreed on several times (I think). —TimeMaster (talk • ) 17:38, February 19, 2012 (UTC) **If half of the people all agree on something diff, they should propose something. Marcus/Michael Villanova 18:52, February 19, 2012 (UTC) ***Don't see that. My system seems to be acceptable to a certain degree to everybody except you. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 18:59, February 19, 2012 (UTC) (More) Discussion I'm still rather dubious about all the options available. Oos' seems the best, but I don't think it's possible to combine all these factors into a equation, of the sort we have now, without making the system massively complicated and impractical. I was doing some experimentation with the Seven Demographic Centre, and I think it might be best if we keep the current system, but allow the governors a ±10% change to accomodate some of these factors according to their own personal judgement. Also, multiply everything by 10. --Semyon 20:11, February 29, 2012 (UTC) I don't think it should be based on residences at all, instead we should add numbers based on what's realistic. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 22:06, February 29, 2012 (UTC) Alright. Semyon proposes a very workable situation. We keep the numbers of the last census, multiply them by 10 and give the governors a right to change these numbers once a-year using a 10% margin. I do want to add that we need the district thing in place. Some kind of law has to pass that a district is a rural area with, say, a maximum of 100 inhabitants and that any new districts cannot be created. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 11:41, March 1, 2012 (UTC) I agree Here here =] Marcus/Michael Villanova 22:25, March 1, 2012 (UTC) If a district goes over 100 inhabitants, does it become a hamlet? Or what? I still don't want owned residences to play a part of the population determination, and Semyon seems to support basing population on residences. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 22:57, March 1, 2012 (UTC) No, it simply does not go over 100 inhabitants. We have to keep some sort of barrier to prevent all districts from turning into cities within ten years time... --OuWTBsjrief-mich 11:09, March 2, 2012 (UTC) The whole point of the district is that it is a rural area, and not an urban one; the two things are completely separated, so one can't turn into the other. Also, if districts can't go over 100 inhabitants, while urban areas can increase to an unlimited extent, Lovia will become ridiculously urbanised. There's also the problem that Amish Kinley is technically part of a district rather than a separate urban area, so that district already has a population of over 200. --Semyon 12:30, March 2, 2012 (UTC) Never mind, I was concerned that the districts would become larger than neighborhoods such as Canterbury (which has 224 inhabitants), but if we increase Canterbury to 2.240 inhabitants and do not multiply the districts by 10, the problem is solved. With a growth rate at the maximum of 10%, districts will never catch up with the neighborhoods, so that'll solve the problem. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 13:30, March 2, 2012 (UTC) I question exactly why it matters if districts are larger than neighbourhoods. :P --Semyon 15:15, March 2, 2012 (UTC) I question why you question that. Districts are meant to be the rural areas, while neighborhoods are part of the towns and thus are not the rural areas. For districts the size of neighborhoods, we invented hamlets. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 15:50, March 2, 2012 (UTC) I still don't understand how that makes a difference, and I thought hamlets were 'unattached neighbourhoods' rather than 'big districts.' --Semyon 16:36, March 2, 2012 (UTC) Actually, I propose we say 'no district can be larger than any hamlet or neighbourhood in the same state.' That allows a lot more flexibility than setting a 'ceiling' of 100 inhabitants, which I rather dislike. --Semyon 16:38, March 2, 2012 (UTC)